MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094840417 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.61

ParaGlide: Interactive Parameter Space Partitioning for Computer Simulations

2013· article· en· W2094840417 on OpenAlexaff
S. Bergner, Michael Sedlmair, Torsten Möller, S. N. Abdolyousefi, Ahmed Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceParameter spaceWorkloadVisualizationProcess (computing)Domain (mathematical analysis)Set (abstract data type)Task (project management)Data miningHuman–computer interactionUser interfaceInteractive visual analysisSpace (punctuation)Interface (matter)Graphical user interfaceData visualizationSystems engineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we introduce ParaGlide, a visualization system designed for interactive exploration of parameter spaces of multidimensional simulation models. To get the right parameter configuration, model developers frequently have to go back and forth between setting input parameters and qualitatively judging the outcomes of their model. Current state-of-the-art tools and practices, however, fail to provide a systematic way of exploring these parameter spaces, making informed decisions about parameter configurations a tedious and workload-intensive task. ParaGlide endeavors to overcome this shortcoming by guiding data generation using a region-based user interface for parameter sampling and then dividing the model's input parameter space into partitions that represent distinct output behavior. In particular, we found that parameter space partitioning can help model developers to better understand qualitative differences among possibly high-dimensional model outputs. Further, it provides information on parameter sensitivity and facilitates comparison of models. We developed ParaGlide in close collaboration with experts from three different domains, who all were involved in developing new models for their domain. We first analyzed current practices of six domain experts and derived a set of tasks and design requirements, then engaged in a user-centered design process, and finally conducted three longitudinal in-depth case studies underlining the usefulness of our approach.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer GraphicsSame topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207